Yes, this is late notice. Yes, probably no one will get this in time to come out if they weren’t already planning on coming, but nevertheless:
Joel Rakes and Turning Violet, Violet are playing tonight at World Cafe Live at 8pm. The show is going to be amazing. If you can come out, you should. Get tickets here. Also, be sure to grab 14 free Christmas songs by Joel Rakes at his site. Here’s a taste:
I wanted to write a quick note to anyone that’s been confused about the lack of writing on all of my sites.
For one reason or another, I’ve decided to do more research on the Slavery, Bible, and Atheism series. Here’s why: It’s a six part series and so far each part has required two separate posts. I am mostly done with the second post of Part 2, and for the whole series so far, I have almost 20 pages of content written. With the stuff I want to say, and the content I wish to cover, I’ve realized that by the end of the series, if I stay on pace, I could have anywhere between 60 and 75 pages worth of material written. And this doesn’t even include the pages worth of comments I’ve written on comments on Facebook and here on the blog. So far, all I’ve written has been very “bloggy” in style and language; in other words — completely unworthy of even considering trying to see published. It’s been very polemical and directly addresses other people and conversations not directly involved in this blog.
As I’ve looked at and read the various articulations about this issue put forward by my atheist friends, I’ve noticed a few philosophical assumptions about ethics that are driving many people’s perspective on how the Bible does/should talk about these things. In this post, I’d like to highlight those things and show how they are neither philosophically or theologically correct. By the time I finished writing, it was really long, so, using one of the few benefits of blogging as a medium of discourse, I will put up the second part (concerning the more theological side of this) tomorrow or the next day.
The Philosophy of Ethics
Principles vs. Applications
Even the most cursory look shows that the study of ethics is the study of transcendent principles that govern our morality and behavior. There is an important distinction though made between those transcendent principles and their applications. One can hold to the exact same set of principles, but apply them differently at different times/cultures. It is simplistic and reductionistic to think that anyone’s “ethics” will be applied in the exact same way every time. No ethicist secular or otherwise treats ethics in this fashion. I believe that Scripture is consistent throughout in its transcendent principles, though not in their comprehensive applications (below). To navigate applications takes another pair of things the Bible talks at length about: faith and wisdom (more in the next post). Further, I don’t think this principle/application distinction provides any serious ethical challenge to biblical authority. The Bible itself never claims to treat ethics in this reductionistic manner, so to force it upon Scripture is dishonest.
One of my atheist friends mentioned the converts in isolated African tribes where nudity is prevalent, saying that if Christians were consistent, they must insist that they all cover up in order to be Church members in good standing. Except there’s a problem with that: there is no Christian ethic of “non-nudity”. There is a Christian ethic of “modesty” that says that we have the responsibility to adorn God’s beautiful creation of the human body in such a way that it maintains the respect and dignity it deserves. Now, how respect and dignity is shown changes culture to culture, so it takes wisdom to see where the human form is being abused in that culture — and that is not a compromise of Christian ethics. The consistent biblical principle has still been preached, upheld, and lived. If ethics (secular or Christian) were as naively structured as is necessary for some of these atheist criticisms to make sense, then the entire field of ethics would be unnecessary and non existent, because we could have a computer program that could make all the black-and-white moral decisions for us.
this is real (I did it myself)
The next post is pretty much done, but I wanted to send out this quick note before moving on. The previous post revealed a lot of things that I neglected to make clear. My fault. Sorry.
First and foremost, the last post was not meant to settle the question on slavery and the Bible. I just wanted to get out what the Bible actually says about it. The most I wanted to accomplish toward addressing the issue was to let people see a clear trajectory within Scripture wherein no part is inherently contradictory to the parts before or after it, no more than a seed is contradictory in nature or form to a fully blossomed flower. I also wanted to give a sense of the complexity of the issue. In every passage that lies out even the most comprehensive sets of morality and ethics for the Israelite people, you never see slavery there. It was never an action that was consistently seen as something moral. It’s not a freedom that the Israelites are free to use whenever they desire; it’s used sporadically, meaning that there must be something else going on beyond some explicit commentary by God on the moral nature of slavery. The New Testament is clear that the crucifixion of Christ was something that was foreordained and ultimately brought about by God, but this neither expunges the moral responsibility of the people that actually did it, nor says that God is all about crucifixion and thinks it is “morally neutral” or “ethically okay”. He clearly thinks it is wrong and evil, and yet He clearly ordained it, allowed it, and used it to bring about his promised redemption to the world.
I just wanted to let all of you know about a new article I recently put up on GoingToSeminary.com. In light of this advent season, I retooled some of the things I wrote in my Beauty series to encourage those of us getting bogged down in holiday busyness and school finals. I hope the article is used to stir many of you towards the great God that dwelt among us. Read the full thing:
Also, for those interested, my church, Liberti (I go to the South Philly campus) has put together a prayer guide for Advent. I hope this further helps you in the weeks to come.
Check out the rest of my Going To Seminary posts.
[First off, this is a long one, and only part 1 of 6, so beware before you start reading.]
On Facebook, there appeared a status by an old atheist friend of mine from undergrad named Larry (supported by another friend Christopher). Here was the thesis of the post:
Regarding moral relativism the christians are hypocritical. They say they believe in a moral objectivity given by god…but how is it then, that they believed slavery was a product of the old days, as it was applicable to the time it was practiced (and sanctioned by the bible) but now condemn it? The bible, last I checked did not change. I think this is a PRIMARY example of moral relativism exhibited by the church and christians. So how can they sit here and tell us that a proof for god is moral objectivity?
In other words, how could the ethics of Christians change over time if the book they supposedly base their ethics upon has not changed? Either the God that inspired the Bible was completely incompetent in his revelation or there was no God revealing anything at all. The note caused a discussion that resulted in almost 90 comments, and I quickly realized that if I were going to respond, it would need to be in a more lengthy manner than a Facebook comment (which is not the most helpful of mediums of debate). So here it is. I’d like to respond to the ideas that came out in the discussions. I want to disagree with them on the basis of five ideas:
As many of us twentysomethings have been bemoaning this entire Fall Season, our generation’s across-the-board favorite comedy, The Office, is declining rapidly. Jim and Pam’s wedding episode was one of the funniest episodes the show has ever seen, but it’s perhaps the only episode all season that had me consistently laughing out loud. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not completely dead. I still sit through (most, not all) episodes with a pleasant smile on my face, but few times will I actually laugh out loud.
It takes a lot to make me laugh out loud. So when a show is able to make me do it consistently almost through an entire episode, I find myself shocked and awed. Friends and (admittedly) Everybody Loves Raymond had been the closest I had experienced to this, until The Office came along and blew my every expectation possible for a comedy. The first handful of seasons of that show are, I feel, among the funniest TV has ever seen. But The Office of today is a mere shadow of The Office of yester-season. But not one but two shows have more than made up for this lack of laugh-out-loud-ness this season.
Art by Julia Meolgrana
If you have about an hour or so, I wanted to plug several articles and a sermon. The sermon is from Matt Chandler. It is a message he gave during a chapel service at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. There is both audio and video available. The message is walking through Hebrews Chapter 11 and into 12 to show what the Christian life is meant to consist of. This message blew me away. It’s about 40 minutes long, and I was almost crying at work by the end. It is a call to see the Fallenness of this world, the Beauty of its Savior, and our need to repent.
The main article I want to push now is an editorial from Patrol Magazine, a frequent subject and inspiration for posts on this blog. These weekly editorials are becoming a highlight of my week. They are always scathing critiques on Christian culture, but are written so intelligently, thoughtfully, and comprehensively, one cannot help but notice the dearth of such quality writing elsewhere in the Christian world. This particular editorial is about how Evangelicalism is dead — not only as a term, but as a movement altogether. Here’s a taste:
As of a couple of weeks ago, I am an in-covenant member at Liberti Church: South Philly. One of the reasons I am writing this is to inform those at Epiphany that don’t know this yet. I thought a good number of people knew, but I’m getting more and more texts and messages from people that obviously don’t know this. Sorry for not communicating this to more people.
As many people know, ever since I first got to Philadelphia, I was an avid member of Epiphany Fellowship. In fact, it was a message by Eric Mason delivered at the Village Church in Dallas, Texas that sealed my decision to come to Philly in the first place. When every other seminarian was spending their first few months at school in that awkward period of looking for a church home, I already had mine. The apartment-hunting visits I had made prior to moving let me visit Epiphany months before I actually moved here and I was made to feel the warmth and hospitality of a community that lived in line with the amazing teaching they receive in and out of Sunday mornings.
For those that have read this blog for a while, seeing the name “Derek Webb” AGAIN in the title of one of my posts probably caused you to at least roll your eyes, if not actually letting out a heavy sigh accompanied with an “oh Paul…”. This is because in about a three month span, I wrote 8 posts all having to do with Derek Webb’s newest album Stockholm Syndrome (here they are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Admittedly, I kept writing all those mainly because I was boasting record visits to my site because of those articles and I wanted to maintain that. But eventually it got old, and I went back to my smaller numbers, though those article still rank as my highest visited even still.
Hey, at the behest of a good friend (you know who you are), I am putting up the links to the two articles I recently wrote on my magazine site, Reform & Revive. I am currently reading a book called Perspective on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith Miller. It’s pretty phenomenal, and I’ve started blogging through the book. I’m putting up articles concerning the better essays that could be the most helpful to everyone out there. So, without further ado, here are those links:
Article #1: I’m Coming Out (Intro to an Evolving Creation)
Article #2: “An Evolving Creation: Oxymoron or Fruitful Insight?” by Keith Miller
Enjoy, and debate away!
I’m doing a lot of moving around the city and country this week, not to mention I have a really good friend from Richmond visiting all this week (and longer perhaps), so I’m not going to be as frequent with the blog this week (if at all). Sorry I’m a little late in getting this out. But, good things are in store in the weeks ahead: I want to get back to my Bible Study blogs, I have an article I’m working on for By Whose Authority?, and I have some posts in the works for this site that are a little more substantive than I’ve been posting recently. Also, I’ll be moving some of the Creation/Evolution discussion from Reform & Revive over to this site. So, check back next week and I’ll be back in full swing.
Hopefully. Bur in the meantime . . .
I just wanted to plug a new website that I am now contributing to. It’s a site from the newest fellow Westminster dropout I’ve met, Allison Quient. It’s a site called “By Whose Authority?” and it’s an ecumenical blog where people from varying theological perspectives write and discuss their respective views. From the site:
This blog is devoted to addressing questions of Church authority and other doctrinal issues surrounding the Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. Our hope is to foster a charitable and winsome dialog in the pursuit of God’s truth.
I haven’t written anything yet, but I’ll try to put up a post on the site in the next couple of days. You can be sure I’ll let it be known here on this blog when that happens. But in the meantime, please go and read some of the posts that have been put up so far. They are pretty phenomenal.
Well, it’s Monday, so it’s time for My Fav Monday, my new weekly post where I plug or review one of my favorite things. I’ve been thinking all week what would be the first thing I would talk about to kick this whole thing off. I had some ideas early yesterday: a podcast, TV show, or musician, perhaps?
And then I got some lunch. And I saw it. And it was then I knew what I was going to write about.
Wawa Eggnog.
It only comes out for a few months out of the year, but when it does, I go kind of crazy. Seriously, it’s one of the best drinks I’ve ever had and every year it’s as good as the year before. No joke. It’s so thick and creamy and not too “noggy”. It comes in two varieties: Original and Pumpkin Spice. The latter is good to at least try once in your life, but really, Original is where it’s at.
Every year my brother and I have a bonding moment over our mutual love for this fine delicacy. We almost grow physically ill while we’re home with our parents from ingesting so much dairy. And it’s worth every bit of it. So drop by your Wawa today and pick up some of it to try. Or, if you are in Philadelphia and have never had it before, I’d be glad to buy you your first one.
Future posts in this weekly series will be more substantive, don’t worry. Next week I’ll probably plug a podcast. Which one? We’ll see. Maybe I’ll hide a hint somewhere in this post.
This was a journal entry of mine from yesterday. Yes, this is how some of my entries look. I’m also in the process of writing a new album called Skeptics & Saints and this might end up being one of the songs, so consider this a preview.
______________________
the long way home 